loftus and palmer

Question 1

research method

Answer 1

• all tasks were laboratory based
• high levels of control over extraneous variables and had an IV and DV
• lab experiments
• questionnaire

Question 2

materials

Answer 2

• video of a reconstructed car accident
• questionnaire

Question 3

experiment 1 - aim

Answer 3

• to see if the estimates given by participants about the speed of vehicles in a traffic accident would be influenced by the wording of the question asked
• e.g. using the verb ‘hit’ and ‘smashed’

Question 4

experiment 1 - method

Answer 4

• two lab experiments
• independent measures design
• IV - the verb given (hit, contacted, smashed, bumped, collided)
• DV - the estimate of the speed the car was travelling at (mph)

Question 5

experiment 1 - sample

Answer 5

• 45 American students
• 5 groups of 9pps
• 1 group for each of the 5 verbs

Question 6

experiment 1 - materials/apparatus

Answer 6

• 7 film clips - originally made as a part of a Driver Education programme
• length of the clips from 5 - 30 seconds

Question 7

experiment 1 - controls

Answer 7

• video clips given in a different order for each group
• all pps given the same questionnaire the only change was the IV verb

Question 8

experiment 1 - procedure

Answer 8

• after each clip the pps were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and then answer a series of specific questions
• the critical question all of the pps were asked:
  ‘about how fast were the cars going when they …. each other’
• each group was given a different verb to fill in the blank, these verbs were ‘smashed, collided, bumped, hit or contacted’ therefore the IV was the verb used
• the DV was the estimate of speed given by the pps
• the whole procedure lasted about an hour and a half

Question 9

experiment 1 - results

Answer 9

• how the question was phrased influenced the pps’ speed estimates
• when the verb ‘smashed’ was used, pps estimated that the cars were travelling much faster (40.8 mph) than when the verb ‘contacted’ was used (31.8mph)

Question 10

experiment 2 - variables

Answer 10

• IV - key verbs (2 verbs, hit, smashed)
• DV - response to the question of broken glass (yes/no)

Question 11

experiment 2 - aim

Answer 11

• to further investigate the effect of leading questions
• would questions create a response-bias or if they actually alter a person’s memory

Question 11

experiment 2 - sample

Answer 11

• 150 American students
• 3 groups of 50 pps
• one group with the word smashed
• one with the word hit
• control group with no question on speed

Question 12

experiment 2 - materials

Answer 12

• pps watched a 1 minute video clip which contained a 4 second multiple car accident
• a questionnaire

Question 13

experiment 2 - design

Answer 13

• lab experiment
• independent measures design

Question 14

experiment 2 - procedure

Answer 14

part 1: pps were asked to describe the accident and then answer a series of specific questions about the accident including the critical question about speed. there were 3 groups
- group 1: how fast were the cars going when they smashed into eachother
- group 2 : how fast were the cars going when they hit into eachother
- group 3 : control group, no question on speed
part 2: one week later the pps, were asked to return to the lab. they were asked further questions including. ‘did you see any broken glass?’ this was embedded into a list on 10 questions
- there was no broken glass, the belief was that those who thought the cars were going faster would expect there to be broken glass

Question 15

experiment 2 - results

Answer 15

• the results show that the verb used in the original question influenced whether the pps thought they had seen broken glass
• the question was ‘Did you see any broken glass?’
• ‘smashed’ - 16 said yes, 34 said no
• ‘hit’ - 7 said yes, 43 said no
• ‘control’ - 6 said yes, 44 said no

Question 16

experiment 1 - conclusion

Answer 16

• the actual speed had little effect on answer
• the phrasing of the question = significant effect
• two possible interpretations :
  1. response bias - person is uncertain and so verb smashed biases their response to a higher estimate
  2. memory distortion - the question actually changes the person memory. The use of the critical word can lead to someone to have a perception of thinking the accident was more serious than it was

Question 17

experiment 2 - conclusion

Answer 17

• memory takes in 2 types of info:
  1. our own perception gleaned at the time of the original event
  2. external information after the event
• overtime these combine into ‘one memory’
• so see car accident on film, critical question ‘how fast cars going when SMASHED..’
• these combine to create a memory of the event that was much more severe than it actually was

Question 18

evaluation - research method

Answer 18

• strengths:
  lab - standardised procedures and control over extraneous variables, e.g. all have good view of accident, led to high internal validity
  independent measures = no order effects
• weaknesses:
  lab - artificial - lacks ecological validity , higher risk of demand characteristics
  not a real car accident, so no emotional impact - research has shown people remember more in real accidents
  people generally bad at estimating speed - Loftus showed that even when given incorrect info, people can remember details such as the colour of a wallet

Question 19

evaluation - sample

Answer 19

• strengths:
  opportunity sample - students from a uni, quick and easy, students readily available, easy to obtain large sample size - improves population validity
• weaknesses
  unique characteristics of the sample, young adults with fewer responsibilities than adults and less life experience (driving experience)
  all young - can’t generalise to the old
  research has shown older people’s memory is affected by source monitoring e.g. where did you get the info from - can be more prone to leading questions

Question 20

evaluation - ethnocentrism

Answer 20

• all pps from america which is an individualistic culture - more concerned with individual gains
• can’t represent collectivist cultures who value what other people say and so are more influenced by this

Question 21

evaluation - ethics

Answer 21

• informed consent:
  not aware of the aim, cannot fully consent
  however, this is needed as their responses might have changed if they had known of the leading questions
• deception
  lied to about the aim - seen as acceptable = necessary and mild form of deception
• psychological harm
  generally low - but could negatively affect some pps, watching accident may cause stress

Question 22

evaluation - validity

Answer 22

• high validity
  standardised procedure - control extraneous variables e.g. having good view of accident, improves internal validity
  independent measures - no order effects
• low validity
  artificial setting - low external validity and ecological validity,
  low population validity all U.S. students, driving culture in USA can’t generalise

Question 23

evaluation - reliability

Answer 23

• high reliability
  standardised procedures - improves internal and external reliability all pps saw the same film clips and had the same questions, apart from critical verbs, replicable, can test for reliability
• low reliability
  individual differences may make procedure slightly different for some pps, e.g. eyesight and crash experience

Question 24

evaluation - data

Answer 24

• strengths
  quantitative , estimates of speed in mph e.g. smash - 40.8 and hit 34 = easy to analyse, make comparisons and conclusions
• weaknesses
  too simplistic = don’t know what the leading questions make people think or feel